If we were able to achieve both a network of discipline based repositories, and one
of IRs (thus accommodating all preferences), would it not be better for the items to be
mirrored, rather than just linked and harvested? The virtue of mirroring would
be the provision of multiple copies as an automatic byproduct and immediately
providing truly reliable archiving not under the control of a single institution.

As for the rest of the NIH policy, it does have one really good feature that
you did not mention. It would be very easy to improve on it next year.
The embargo can be shortened, all the way to zero. The material can improve to
the pdf's. The "requested," which is being read by all those with NIH grants as
meaning "required, unless you want to gamble with your career" can change to "required."

Dr. David Goodman
Associate Professor
Palmer School of Library and Information Science
Long Island University
dgoodman_at_liu.edu

(3) *immediately* upon acceptance (not within 12 months) along
with the "keystroke" strategy of giving the NIH fundees the option,
if they wish (for the 8% of journals that are still not green),
of depositing the compulsory full-text in their own IR, but making
only the metadata visible institution-externally, while emailing the
eprint to any eprint-requesters (who of course see the metadata) for
the 8% of journals that are still not green: infinitely preferable
to a blanket embargo). NIH's PubMed Central can then harvest when
it chooses, without holding everything else back by underwriting
an embargo.

Instead, apologists for the NIH Policy keep expounding the prominent,
undeniable, and totally unnecessary flaws of its current version as if
they were hidden virtues. Meanwhile, the waiting for OA goes on (and
on)...